Criminal contempt can arise either from your actions or from publishing a matter which:

(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;

2) criminal contempt is of a criminal nature. It encompasses acts such as wilful disobedience to Judges in Court, disrespectful behaviour towards Judges in open Court, defamation of Judges or Courts, interference with the judicial process, or any act that has the potential to prejudice the course of justice. A person is found guilty of criminal contempt when their conduct tends to bring disrespect to the authority and administration of the law or interferes with or prejudices litigants during the legal proceedings.

3)  Civil Contempt" as per Section 2 (b), pertains to the intentional refusal to comply with any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or other legal process of a Court, or the intentional violation of an undertaking given to the Court.

4) 

The Constitution Bench of Supreme  Court in State of Bihar v. Sonabati Kumari [AIR 1961 SC 221] , held that the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short "the 1971 Act") deal with the wilful defiance of the order passed by the court. Order of punishment be not passed if the court is satisfied that the party was, in fact, under a misapprehension as to the scope of the order or there was an unintentional wrong for the reason that the order was ambiguous and reasonably capable of more than one interpretation or the party never intended to disobey the order but conducted himself in accordance with the interpretation of the order.

5) it is necessary to peruse the circular and judgment to advice whether cone,tot or court proceedings are maintainable or not 

6) if you have already filed civil contempt case doubtful whether criminal contempt case would be maintainable 

Contempt of court refers to the act of interfering with the administration of justice, which can take various forms and may result in the improper execution of justice. It is considered a serious offense that can lead to imprisonment, and it involves making false statements or interfering with the judicial proceedings.
The main difference between civil contempt and criminal contempt in India is that civil contempt is a violation of a court order, while criminal contempt is an act that interferes with the administration of justice.
In India, the punishment for civil contempt of court is as follows: Simple imprisonment for up to six months, A fine of up to two thousand rupees, and Both. 

The accused can be discharged or the punishment can be remitted if they apologize to the satisfaction of the court. The apology must be bona fide and not qualified or conditional
Criminal contempt of court is different from civil contempt of court, which is usually used to enforce legal directives like child support payments. Criminal contempt of court is intended to punish misconduct, while civil contempt is intended to compel compliance.
The punishment for criminal contempt of court is a fine of up to Rs 2,000, or simple imprisonment for up to 6 months, or both. However, this limit only applies to the High Courts, and the Supreme Court has more discretion in what punishment to give

Dear Client,

In the Present Scenario, a civil case had been filed against a statutory authority, in what is essentially a criminal contempt case. However, the Authority had picked the directions issued, altered the same, and published the court directions on their circular, wherein, it has omitted the most important directions with relevance to the illegal gain made for its regulated entities, committing bias and legal opportunism. With respect to your first query, as to whether it is possible for any other who has similarly been affected to plead themselves into the civil contempt case, along with a criminal contempt petition, and thus pursue the case. According to the Civil Procedure Code, a person may be added as a party if their presence is deemed necessary for the proper and complete adjudication of the case. However, such party should have been directly affected by the actions of the statutory authority. With respect to the query as to whether the same petitioner who filed the civil contempt, will it be possible to file another criminal contempt case and pursue both cases together, it can be noted that, the same can be done as there is no bar to present a civil and a criminal case for the same fact situation.

Hope you find this answer beneficial for resolving the dispute.

1.In civil contempt cases, it is possible for other affected parties to join the case, if these parties can show that the actions of the said statutory authority have caused them direct harm and that their interests are linked,

- Further, they can move an application before the Court for become a party in the case. 

2. Yes, the same petitioner who filed the civil contempt case can also file a separate criminal contempt petition if there are grounds for such a claim.

These cases are very common in various Courts of India and Supreme Court of India. I can understand your concern in this regard. Third party (similarly affected) can be impleaded in the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized that Section 20 applies to civil and criminal contempts and would also apply to the contempt committed on the face of High Court or the Supreme Court or even Subordinate Courts. Therefore, with regard the instituting both together, the documents is to be examined. In an inter-party proceeding, orders of the Court bind only the parties to such proceedings. Therefore, violation of such orders by any of the parties to the proceedings may amount to contempt of Court, punishable in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, there may be instances where the violation/ disregard of Court's order results not only from the conduct of the parties to the proceedings, rather, from the conduct of persons totally unrelated thereto ("third person"). Under such circumstances, providing immunity to third person on pure technical grounds that the orders of Court bind only parties to the proceedings, would amount to permitting indirect assault on the majesty and supremacy of judiciary, which the Courts are bound to protect.

Law on third party liability in contempt proceedings in India is primarily an adaptation of the principles of English Law. One of the earliest English cases discussing the liability of third party in contempt proceedings is that of Seaward v. Paterson, (1897) 1 Ch. 545. The Hon'ble Chancery Division, while acknowledging the difference between the person bound by order of Court and a person, though not bound by such order, but conducting himself in the manner so as to obstruct the course of justice, held, "In the one case the party who is bound by the injunction is proceeded against for the purpose of enforcing the order of the Court for the benefit of the person who got it. In the other case the Court will not allow its process to be set at naught and treated with contempt." Similarly, Lord Denning in Acrow (Automation) Ltd. v. Rex Chainbelt Inc., (1971) 3 All ER 1175 held, "The Court has jurisdiction to commit for contempt person, not a party to the action who knowing of an injunction, aids and abets the defendant in breaking it."

The aforementioned principles were adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sita Ram v. Balbir alias Bali, (2017) 2 SCC 456, while imposing liability on third persons, aiding and abetting the contemnor in flouting the orders of the Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association & Anr., AIR 1991 Mad. 323, while carrying out an exhaustive review of the case laws on the subject, observed, "We can see thus clearly that the Courts in India invariably accepted the law applied in England and found (1) a party to the suit if he had notice or knowledge of the order of the Court and (2) a third party or a stranger, if he had aided or abetted the violation with notice or knowledge of the order of injunction guilty of civil contempt and otherwise found a third party guilty of criminal contempt if he has been found knowingly obstructing implementation of its order or direction.."

Conclusively, mere absence of law specifically providing for the liability of third party in contempt proceedings has not acted as a deterrent for the Courts to reprimand the violators of its orders, though, not specifically named therein or expressly bound by it. In fact, through the process of adoption and traversing the rugged terrains through years, Courts have developed a mechanism wherein no violator of its order/ injunction is left unpunished, even though not a party to a proceeding before Court. Clearly an act of violation of order of the order of Court or interfering with the administration of justice by third person amounts to contempt by such third person. As Lord Justice Eveleigh in Z LTD. v. A-Z AND AA-LL, [1982] Q.B. 558 observed, "It is true that his conduct may very often be seen as possessing a dual character of contempt of court by himself and aiding and abetting the contempt by another, but the conduct will always amount to contempt of court by himself. It will be conduct which knowingly interferes with the administration of justice by causing the order of the court to be thwarted."

Detailed discussion is required in such cases with relevant documents.

You may contact my secretary to connect with me for clarification.

1. Yes but they need to file impleading application else they can file a fresh case 

2.yes he can provided if there is a contempt